Pillock on Bike malliciously mows down blind pensioner, escapes practically laughing

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:51:42 +0000 (UTC),
Peter B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Paul Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Shouldn't cars with no insurance (have a database of cars with license
> plate
>> mapped to tax/mot/insurance etc.) be stopped when tehy are seen and the
>> driver arrested.
>
> According to last Saturdays Daily Wail the trick is to get a cover note so
> that a VED disc will be issued then cancel the policy.
> They also reported that if people are being fined 75 to 150 quid for having
> no insurance they're not inclined to pay 1000 pounds plus for insurance.
> Maybe I'm a simple sod but surely they should be made to pay (or imprisioned
> if they don't have the means) at least as much in fines as what a policy
> would have cost thereby negating the incentive.

The cost of a policy would be the minimum amount. I would then add
a percentage (maybe 5% for a first offence) of (total salary/income +
cost of car) to that. If they can't pay - then use Blunketts new
tag on 'em and give them a curfew and area restriction at weekends
until they pay.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:51:42 +0000 (UTC),
Peter B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Paul Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Shouldn't cars with no insurance (have a database of cars with license
> plate
>> mapped to tax/mot/insurance etc.) be stopped when tehy are seen and the
>> driver arrested.
>
> According to last Saturdays Daily Wail the trick is to get a cover note so
> that a VED disc will be issued then cancel the policy.
> They also reported that if people are being fined 75 to 150 quid for having
> no insurance they're not inclined to pay 1000 pounds plus for insurance.
> Maybe I'm a simple sod but surely they should be made to pay (or imprisioned
> if they don't have the means) at least as much in fines as what a policy
> would have cost thereby negating the incentive.

The cost of a policy would be the minimum amount. I would then add
a percentage (maybe 5% for a first offence) of (total salary/income +
cost of car) to that. If they can't pay - then use Blunketts new
tag on 'em and give them a curfew and area restriction at weekends
until they pay.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Peter B]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Still - at least he's got a number plate for a camera to take a photo of,
> or a passing plod to note, and a licence to endorse, and insurance to
raise
> the cost of.

1, The number plate is only of use if a working camera or interested
plodperson witnesses the transgression.
2, You're assuming he's insured.
3, How do those factors mitigate his behaviour?


Pete

 

[Peter B]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Still - at least he's got a number plate for a camera to take a photo of,
> or a passing plod to note, and a licence to endorse, and insurance to
raise
> the cost of.

1, The number plate is only of use if a working camera or interested
plodperson witnesses the transgression.
2, You're assuming he's insured.
3, How do those factors mitigate his behaviour?


Pete

 

[Peter B]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

About Steve Firth:

> The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the vast disparity in risk posed
by
> cycles and cars says more about you than the rapid hand movements under
your
> duvet ever will.

Coffee over keyboard moment )

Pete

 

[Ian Edwards]

John Laird wrote:
>
> I'd be quite happy for it to be zero, provided there was a mandatory
> requirement for the chav-mobile to be crushed. Victims of uninsured drivers
> could put their names into a lottery for the chance to operate the
> crusher...
>
Having been the innocent victim twice now of drunken uninsured drivers,
I would rather they were staked out on my lawn so that I could remove
both their testicles, very slowly and painfully, with a blunt and rusty
spoon that had been dipped in a culture of MRSA!

--
Ian Edwards

 

[Peter B]

"Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gk5fgr.1yjri7c1e8w9ogN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> So £150 for cycling without
> insurance sounds perfectly fair to me.

If you were really concerned about road safety, as opposed to a childish
jealousy based on the perception of someone else getting a treat you don't,
you'd be more concerned about uninsured motorists who could cause you, your
loved ones and your property serious damage in one single incident.
Think about it, who are you most at risk from?
If you clout a pavement cyclist who whizzes past you ear I'll cheer for you
but for gawds sake stop bleating on about having to pay fees cyclists don't,
it's so childish it's pathetic to think you're a grown man.

Pete

 

[Jon Senior]

Peter B [email protected] opined the following...
> > The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the vast disparity in risk posed
> by
> > cycles and cars says more about you than the rapid hand movements under
> your
> > duvet ever will.
>
> Coffee over keyboard moment )

That did sound amazingly like an insult just waiting for a victim. And
my keyboard also narrowly escaped a drenching.

Jon

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

Don't suppose there's any chance of the crossposting to stop, so this thread
involving the wankers of uk.tosspot stay over there instead appearing on urc???
*please*???

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

 

[Jon Senior]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers [email protected]omcom opined the
following...
> Don't suppose there's any chance of the crossposting to stop, so this thread
> involving the wankers of uk.tosspot stay over there instead appearing on urc???
> *please*???

But we battle on in the vain hope that the aforementioned wankers can be
turned to the One True Way.

Don't deny us this opportunity! ;-)

Jon

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

>But we battle on in the vain hope that the aforementioned wankers can be
>turned to the One True Way.
>
>Don't deny us this opportunity! ;-)
>

Fine, but could you just keep it in uk.tosspot and not as a blot on
civilisation over here?

Of course, I could use my killfile... sigh...

Cheers, helen s



--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

 

[Jon Senior]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers [email protected]omcom opined the
following...
> Fine, but could you just keep it in uk.tosspot and not as a blot on
> civilisation over here?

God no... that would involve subscribing to it!

> Of course, I could use my killfile... sigh...

*PLONK* ?

Jon

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Steve Firth wrote:

> From the cities that I visit each week, principally Chester, Birmingham,
> Manchester, Worcester, London and York. I have yet to see a single
> cyclist stop at a red light in any of those cities and only see them
> stop for red lights here in rural Hampshire.

If you'd been driving around the Taff valley, you'd have seen me
stopping at red lights at 7am on a Sunday morning, with not a single car
in sight. In fact, the only red light I've ever jumped was a temporary
one at 6am on a deserted street, and I couldn't for the life of me get
it to notice I was there.

As long as you don't kill any of them, you can go on hating all
cyclists. It still makes you a ****wit whether you hit them or not.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"I have to deal with the ****ing stupidest
guy on the face of the earth almost every day."
General Tommy Franks, about Douglas Feith

 

[James Annan]

Steve Firth wrote:

> I have already stated that I took the *******
> to court.

So what's your problem?

> And that has no bearing on the issue of whether insurance should be
> mandatory for all road users. If it is mandatory for car drivers and
> motorcyclists then it shoudl be mandatory for cyclists. You have no
> valid objection to the principle.

My valid objection is that your idea is about as relevant and worthwhile
as suggesting that everyone should have compulsory general 3rd party
insurance covering them in all circumstances. There is nothing special
abbout "cycling" that merits special attention compared to "walking" or
"climbing a ladder" or "kicking a football around" or "pushing a
shopping trolley in Tesco" or "mowing the lawn", all of which do on
(rare) occasion cause serious injury and loss to innocent victims.

Now, if you want to argue that case, be my guest. You will be aware, no
doubt, that such cover is generally thrown in (virtually for free) with
house contents insurance. It costs about a quid per person.

Oh, it specifically excludes driving, of course.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 15 Sep 2004 14:08:39 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>>> Hell, even a mirror can be £3-400.
>£100+ last time I lost one. That was just for the glass and motor, though,
>as I found the sprayed plastic shell, and the body of it was fine. It
>doesn't include the indicator or an electric fold-back, either.

The point of the electric fold-back being that you don't need to buy
them because the numpty mirror-clippers don't knock it off in the
first place. Because, as I'm sure you will acknowledge, the majority
of mirror damagae (and indeed a fair old bit of other minor body
damage) is done to parked cars, by drivers who do not leave details.

>> I was parked. They didn't stop. Another car driver causes damage and
>> runs away. Shocking.

>I wish it was shocking.

I think that might have been some of that there irony.

>I'm arguing in favour of
>responsibility and consideration on the part of *all* road users,
>regardless of their chosen form of transport.

I don't think that's contentious. There have been several threads on
urc where Pavement Petes and other nupmties have been roundly
castigated.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 15 Sep 2004 15:45:12 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> You wish. Of 186 pedestrian fatalities on the footway in a three year
>> period, 185 were killed by motor vehicle drivers and only one by a
>> cyclist.

>As I said - fatalities are fairly obvious. One per week is hardly a MASSIVE
>number, though. Fault is pretty obvious, though.

Really? So, for example, if it had been a shared use facility and the
victim had stepped backwards into the path of a bicycle on the bike
lane without looking, it would still be the bike's fault?

Actually in my book it would m because shared-use facilities are a
work of Stan and should be Shunned, but legally the question is not
quite so clear-cut.

And the fact remains that you are nearly 200 times more likely to be
killed by a motor vehicle on the pavement than by a cyclist, despite
the fuss which is made about pavement cycling. As has been pointed
out many times, few drivers even attempt to accomplish much of their
journey on the pavement, usually restricting their pavement driving to
times when they are out of control, bypassing traffic light queues or
whatever. I think that tells us everything we need to know about the
relative danger, especially when adjusted for exposure.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

> Because, as I'm sure you will acknowledge, the majority
> of mirror damagae (and indeed a fair old bit of other minor body
> damage) is done to parked cars, by drivers who do not leave details.

TBH, I may be unique in that I've never lost a mirror while parked. I've
lost several to people coming the other way, though.

> I don't think that's contentious. There have been several threads on
> urc where Pavement Petes and other nupmties have been roundly
> castigated.

IRT as "castrated". Which may well be appropriate.

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>>> You wish. Of 186 pedestrian fatalities on the footway in a three
>>> year period, 185 were killed by motor vehicle drivers and only one
>>> by a cyclist.

>>As I said - fatalities are fairly obvious. One per week is hardly a
>>MASSIVE number, though. Fault is pretty obvious, though.

> Really? So, for example, if it had been a shared use facility and the
> victim had stepped backwards into the path of a bicycle on the bike
> lane without looking, it would still be the bike's fault?

If it had been a shared-use cycle path, and the ped had stepped back into
the path of a car using the cycle path, I think it'd be safe to say it was
the car driver's fault...

I'm really not sure you can blame the bicycle, though, Guy.

> And the fact remains that you are nearly 200 times more likely to be
> killed by a motor vehicle on the pavement than by a cyclist, despite
> the fuss which is made about pavement cycling. As has been pointed
> out many times, few drivers even attempt to accomplish much of their
> journey on the pavement, usually restricting their pavement driving to
> times when they are out of control, bypassing traffic light queues or
> whatever. I think that tells us everything we need to know about the
> relative danger, especially when adjusted for exposure.

I don't think anybody's arguing that driving on the pavement is a good
idea. I think we can safely assume that any driver using the pavement to go
round a traffic light queue is a complete ****** and should be severely
dealt with.

However - as I said - and as you've managed to avoid answering - what about
numbers of minor injuries to peds on pavements caused by bikes rather than
cars?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:00:27 +0100, [email protected] (Steve
Firth) wrote in message <1gk6fu0.v6iytw1kv96xnN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>> > And again you prove your stupidity by attempting to
>> continue arguing with you. You are so right.
>And again, you delete context. You really are a ****wit.

Ah, your usual level of lucidity reasserts itself.

<sam&dave>
He's a troll man...
</sam&dave>

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:46:34 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

> About Steve Firth:

>> The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the vast disparity in risk posed
>> by cycles and cars says more about you than the rapid hand movements under
>> your duvet ever will.

>Coffee over keyboard moment )

Showing my age, there - it dates back to the "says more about you than
cash ever can" adverts for Barclaycard, as satirised by Not. I
started using "says more about you than a series of rapid slapping
noises under the bedclothes ever can" to describe BMWs, and the rest
is history

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University